DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al. (WO 2008/147003) (Min) in view of Blair et al. (US 2007/0289974) (Blair).
Min discloses a liquid gas transport container (LNG tank as shown in Fig. 1) comprising: a first membrane (primary barriers 40) defining a cavity (storage cavity); a first insulation layer (primary insulation panels 10) disposed around the first membrane, a second membrane (secondary barriers 50) disposed about the first insulation layer; a second insulation layer (secondary insulation panels 20) disposed about the second membrane; a backing material (lower plates 22, parts 80, level wedges 81 and mastic 82) coupled to an outer surface of the second insulation layer, the backing material including a support structure (lower plates 22) configured to provide stability to the backing material; and a hull (70) disposed around the backing material, wherein the backing material (elements 81 and 82 are in contact with the hull) contacts an inner surface of the hull. Min fails to disclose that closed cell insulation material is the type of insulation for the first and second insulation materials. Blair teaches closed-cell, syntactic foam as an insulation material. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the insulation material to be closed-cell, syntactic foam to provide a higher insulation value, a lighter weight insulation material and a less gas permeable insulation material.
Re claims 1 and 3, the second closed-cell insulation material comprises a second syntactic foam (all syntactic foam is closed cell by definition, see paragraph [17], line 12).
Re claim 5, these claims state atmospheric pressure (1 atm) which is assumed when there is no statement about vacuum.
Re claim 7, the first membrane comprises one or more corrugations (42, as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the one or more corrugations comprise a first membrane cavity disposed between the first membrane and the first insulation layer.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min in view of Blair as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Simpson et al. (US 11518917) (Simpson).
The combination fails to disclose the hollow microspheres of the syntactic foam. Simpson teaches a syntactic foam having hollow glass microspheres (HGM) 3, 5; the larger spheres 3 have an outer diameter of 120 micrometers and smaller spheres 5 have an outer diameter of 20 micrometers. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the syntactic foam having HGM as taught by Simpson to provide an insulation that is lighter in weight and has a greater R value.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min in view of Blair as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of CN 114198633 (Chinese document).
The combination fails to disclose a vacuum or sub-atmospheric pressure between the first membrane and the first insulation layer. The Chinese document teaches a vacuum chamber between outer shell 400 and corrugated layer 300 forming the inner shell of the vacuum chamber. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to provide a vacuum or sub-atmospheric pressure between the first membrane and the first insulation layer to further insulate the cryogenic content.
Claim(s) 9-12, 15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min in view of Papanicolaou et al. (US 3948406) (Papanicolaou) and Kim et al. (US 2013/0260078) (Kim).
Min discloses a liquid gas transport container (LNG tank as shown in Fig. 1) comprising: a first membrane (primary barriers 40) defining a cavity (storage cavity); a first insulation layer (primary insulation panels 10) disposed around the first membrane, the first insulation layer being formed of a plurality of insulation blocks (see Fig. 1, the panels 10 are in block form); a backing material (lower plates 22, parts 80, level wedges 81 and mastic 82) disposed around the first insulation layer; and a hull (70) disposed around the backing material. Min fails to disclose (1) that the insulation material is closed-cell and (2) that the at least one insulation block of the plurality of insulation blocks is surrounded by a first intermediate shell.
Kim teaches closed-cell foam as the closed cell content is 20% or less as stated in the last sentence of paragraph [27] and a shell (520, 620) which seals the core foam material making the shell impermeable to gas and vacuum sealing the core material. See paragraphs [55-56].
Papanicolaou teaches a liquified gas storage tank formed with masses 8 of thermally insulating material wherein each mass 8 is encapsulated within a shell formed of a unitary cellular matrix formed of fluid-impervious layers 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. The formed, encapsulated, insulation blocks are laid up like brickwork as skin-enveloped blocks (see column 6, lines 23-26).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the insulating material to be closed-cell to provide a higher insulation value, a lighter weight insulation material and a less gas permeable insulation material.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to add a first intermediate shell to one or each block to vacuum seal each block by surrounding and encapsulating a core insulation material which prevents vapor penetration and provides greater longevity to the vacuum insulation value of the insulation block.
The resultant first intermediate shell is impermeable, is disposed between the first membrane and the first insulation layer, is bonded to a sidewall of the at least one insulation block, and is disposed between the first insulation layer and the backing material.
Re claims 10-12 and 21, Min discloses a second membrane and second insulation layer with second insulation blocks. Modification of the second insulation layer and second insulation blocks is conducted in a similar manner as for the first insulation layer and first insulation blocks to provide closed-cell insulation material and forming a second intermediate shell to encapsulate and surround at least one second insulation block with similar motivation. The second intermediate shell is impermeable.
Re claim 15, further comprising a membrane support layer (upper plate 11, as shown in Fig. 1) disposed between the first intermediate shell and the first membrane.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min in view of Papanicolaou and Kim as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of WO 2017/018699 (the WIPO document).
Re claim 13, the combination discloses a polyurethane insulating material and fails to disclose one of the listed insulating materials of claim 13. The WIPO document teaches a vacuum space with a heat shielding made of aluminized Mylar with a thickness of 1-2 cm (10-20 mm). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute a different insulating material, aluminized Mylar, for the polyurethane of Wei as a better radiant heat barrier to prevent radiant heat for intruding and warming the cryogenic contents of the tank.
Re claim 14, the thickness of the WIPO documents insulating material is within the stated thickness of about 0.1 to about 10 mm.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min in view of Papanicolaou and Kim as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kotcharian.
Min discloses a weld for bonding the membrane support layer (11) and fails to disclose adhesive bonding. Kotcharian teaches an adhesively bonded membrane support layer 10, see column 12, last sentence. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to replace the weld with adhesive bonding to provide a bond with plastic materials that are compatible with the materials in the bonded layers.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min in view of Papanicolaou, Kim and Kotcharian as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Reed et al. (US 3159005) (Reed).
The combination fails to disclose cryogenic epoxy adhesive for the membrane adhesive. Reed teaches the use of an insulation adhesive (adhesive compatible with insulation materials, “epoxy resin cement,” to secure a flexible membrane layer to insulation of a tank for low temperature service (liquefied petroleum gases, cryogenic). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add adhesive, specifically, a cryogenic epoxy adhesive as the membrane adhesive to prevent layer-to-layer movement, shifting and misalignment which would adversely affect the insulation and sealing performance of the layers.
Claim(s) 19, 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min in view of Papanicolaou and Kim as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Reed et al. (US 3159005) (Reed).
The combination fails to disclose cryogenic epoxy adhesive for the insulation adhesive. Reed teaches the use of an insulation adhesive (adhesive compatible with insulation materials, “epoxy resin cement,” to secure a flexible membrane layer to insulation of a tank for low temperature service (liquefied petroleum gases, cryogenic). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add adhesive, specifically, a cryogenic epoxy adhesive as the insulation adhesive to prevent layer-to-layer movement, shifting and misalignment which would adversely affect the insulation and sealing performance of the layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because there is a new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights